Repatriation of paleo specimens

From
Date
Reply-To
The following message concerns comments about drafts of a new international 
treaty being discussed on TAXACOM, that has alarmed some museum scientists about
possible requirements to repatriate specimens contained in their collections, 
especially type specimens. This comment about the treaty draft indicates that 
paleontological specimens would be more likely to be regarded as worthy of 
repatriation than neontological specimens, although supposedly the treaty 
applies primarily to cultural objects. Skim the first two paragraphs. The 
thoughts of interest start in the third paragraph.

I think the phrase "As can be expected from a document like this it pays more 
attention to formalities than to internal consistency" is a good point of 
reference in trying the understand the content of the treaty draft.



> From: Sven O Kullander <ve-sven@NRM.SE>
> Date:         Thu, 13 Jul 1995 21:14:08 +0200
> To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM@CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
> Subject:      Re: UNIDROIT implications?

> Having taken part of the UNIDROIT declaration, it is obvious that this item
> is a 'tempest in a museum cabinet', or not even that - just a wind carrying
> some museum dust with it. Unveilance of what was beneath the dust maybe was
> more interesting than the declaration.
> 
> The UNIDROIT declaration makes clear that only cultural objects are
> concerned. The 'science' mentioned in the passing obviously only relates to
> Arts, Humanistics, Social, Anthropological and the like Science, i.e. the
> science of human expressions, whereabouts and artifacts - not Natural
> Science which mainly concerns human-independent expressions of matter. As
> can be expected from a document like this it pays more attention to
> formalities than to internal consistency - the value aspects attributed to
> the stuff concerned are purely non-scientific.
> 
> The background relates obviously mainly to ethnographica and war
> plunderings. As to natural history specimens, such can be considered of
> cultural value. But for what I see, the UNIDROIT declaration does not apply
> to natural history specimens in general, except palaeontological specimens
> and stuff relating to archaeology. This is an important distinction.
> 
> Complete slabs of Archaeopteryx are certainly of immense cultural value as
> are artifacts found alongside early hominids. Beetle types are not.
> 
> Since someone made the claim that Linnaean specimens (which, in any case,
> were not stolen from anyone!) might have to be returned to the United States
> (of all places!), this gives me an excellent example to show that the
> cultural value of the Linnaean collections is in Sweden, not from wherever
> the specimens came. The Linnaean collections (his private, that of King
> Adolf Fredrik, and various other little collections) were amassed here in
> Sweden and their cultural value derives solely from the cultural importance
> of Linnaeus.
> 
> The specimens themselves are often in bad condition, lack collecting data,
> and are not always types. Some of the material is maintained in London where
> they should stay since collections maintained in Sweden are not all being
> taken proper care of.  Then the problem is only whether the Linnaean
> collections belong to Man's culture or to the Swedish culture only. In the
> sense of the lawyers and diplomats of UNIDROIT they belong to Sweden. If you
> steal them you must return them not because they are valuable to Mankind but
> because they belong to Sweden. And only Sweden can claim the specimens. Then
> you should know that the same Swedish administration that sent people to
> sign the UNIDROIT convention does not give even half of what that trip cost
> to care for those specimens. For what I can see, UNIDROIT does not
> differentiate between garbage and useful biological specimens.
> 
> Another point of interest is that although the 'Kingdom of Sweden' is listed
> amongst participants, the Culture Ministry here is completely unaware of the
> UNIDROIT declaration, and although big potatoes from this museum attended
> the ICOM meeting in Bergen (which adopted the UNIDROIT declaration without
> critical examination), the one I talked to heard of UNIDROIT for the first
> time from the TAXACOM message that I forwarded. For what I can see, UNIDROIT
> has no backing in the real world and after all it may not get ratified by so
> many countries.
> 
> For the most part UNIDROIT topics are resolved by national legislation, so
> it per se definitely redundant. The export of archaeological objects is
> forbidden in all countries I know of. The export of endangered fauna and
> flora is also prohibited, with international conventions as a guarantee that
> only the really bad guys get away with it. Denmark has an interesting law
> pertaining to palaeontological objects, the Danekrae, by which the Danish
> State (=The Palaeontological Museum) is guaranteed to select from specimens
> collected by amateurs. By letting amateurs keep some stuff, the danes have a
> guaranteed supply of both interesting specimens and information about
> interesting new localities. This law, of course, pertains to scientific
> specimens, not cultural objects. Reasons for not allowing free international
> transport of non-endangered, non-unique (palaeontological objects sometimes
> are unique) specimens can only be drawn from the dark interiors of some of
> us. The collecting itself, however, needs to take some normal social,
> psychological considerations, and most nations have a law or two on it.
> 
> The unique thing with UNIDROIT is that channels are established by which
> States can forward claims on other States, and the other State has a body
> available for replying (not necessarily positively!). Still, this will be
> mainly, I guess, negotiations about cultural property acquired in war raids
> (because a large portion of the signing states bomb each other now and
> then), not objects circulating openly in the scientific society. I can see
> nothing wrong with that part of the UNIDROIT declaration.
> 
> There is still some problem pertaining to the 'ownership' of biological
> specimens. For the most part, I believe that scientists working in other
> countries, do their work together with local scientists or, when possible,
> with the permission of the local government. This matter needs to be
> discussed more, and all the prejudices ventilated, because the world is
> changing and will not always look familiar to those who believe there is a
> First and a Third world (BTW, which one would the USA belong to?), green
> letters on a black screen, and that the national border is reflected all the
> way to the sky.
> 
> All the above are my personal reflections, maybe useful, maybe only a
> reaction to reading too many UNIDROIT messages.
> 
> 
> 
> ==================================================================
> Sven O Kullander
> Senior Curator - Ichthyology
> Department of Vertebrate Zoology
> Swedish Museum of Natural History
> POB 50007
> S-104 05 Stockholm  SWEDEN
> Tel +46-8-666 4116 Fax +46-8-666 4212  E-mail: ve-sven@nrm.se
> WWW http://www.nrm.se/verte/svenpage.htm
> ===================================================================


_________________________________________________________________________
Thomas E. Yancey
Dept. Geology & Geophysics
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3115
Voice: 409 845 0643    Fax: 409 845 6162
email: tyancey@tamu.edu
                     ---------------------                      (misquoted from)
Complex problems have simple, straightforward, wrong solutions.  (H.L. Mencken)